🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months after the vote that delivered Donald Trump a decisive return victory, the Democratic party has still not issued its postmortem analysis. But, last week, an prominent progressive lobby group published its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors argued, failed to connect with core constituencies because it failed to concentrate enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the threat to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, progressives neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for European Capitals

As the EU braces for a tumultuous period of politics between now and the end of the decade, that is a message that must be fully understood in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy indicates, is optimistic that “patriotic” parties in Europe will quickly replicate Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, supported by significant segments of blue-collar voters. But among mainstream leaders and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is sufficient to challenging times.

Major Problems and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and historic. They include the war in Ukraine, maintaining the momentum of the green transition, dealing with demographic change and developing economies that are more resilient to bullying by Mr Trump and China. According to a Brussels-based thinktank, the new age of global instability could require an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A major report last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in public goods, to be financed in part by jointly held EU debt.

Such a fiscal paradigm shift would boost growth figures that have flatlined for years.

However, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there continues to be a deficit of courage when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations resist the idea of collective borrowing, and Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are profoundly unambitious. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is overwhelmingly popular with voters. But the embattled centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Price of Inaction

The truth is that without such measures, the less affluent will pay the price of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and increased inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany testify to a growing battle over the future of the European social model – a trend that the RN and the AfD have happily exploited to promote a politics of welfare chauvinism. Ms Le Pen’s party, for example, has resisted moves to raise the retirement age and has said that it would focus any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as subsequent Medicaid cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet in the absence of a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the election circuit. Absent a fundamental change in fiscal policy, social contracts across the continent risk being ripped up. Governments must avoid giving this political gift to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.